Attachment_2_QASP.pdf

FA5606XXXXXXX

QUALITY ASSURANCE

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

For

Disposal of International Catering

Waste FA5606XXXXXXX

726th Air Mobility Squadron https://media.usafe.af.mil/Art/shields/HQ%20USAFE.wmf

REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE

The following Business Requirements Advisory Group (BRAG)/Multi-Functional Team (MFT) member signatures indicate their review and acceptance of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for the Disposal of International Catering Waste Services Contract. These signatures indicate coordination on this surveillance plan at the time of development. These team members are not the only individuals on the BRAG/MFT but are the individuals that will have continual interface with this contract. No further BRAG/MFT coordination is needed unless the intent of the QASP is changed.

Date: _______________

Date: _______________

Date: _______________

Date: _______________

Date: _______________

Date: _______________

Print Name: Capt. Cody Freeborn Functional Commander/Director

Print Name:MSgt. Anthony Biecheler Primary Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Print Name: Anja Weber-Sabo Contract Administrator

Print Name: Cynthia Dmitrijev Quality Assurance Program Coordinator

Print Name: Claudia Mans Contracting Officer

Print Name:

Contractor (After Award)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title

PART I Page

1. Vision - Overview 4

2. Mission - Description of Services 4

3. Purpose 4

4. Authority 4

PART II

5. Roles and Responsibilities 5

6. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance 6

6.1. Contract Surveillance 6

6.2. Surveillance Matrix 7

6.3. Performance Rating Definitions 8

PART III

7. Performance Reporting 9

7.1. Performance Assessment Report (PAR) 9

7.2. Corrective Action Report (CAR) 9

7.3. Customer Complaint Record 10

8. List of Attachments 11

PART I

1. VISION – THE FUTURE

The 726 Air Mobility Squadron’s (AMS) vision is to enable achievement of proper disposal of international catering waste in accordance with local laws and procedures.

2. MISSION - DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES – THE PRESENT

Scope of Work. The contract will support 726 AMS in providing for non-personal services to dispose of waste that has accumulated outside of the country on arriving aircraft. Waste that has been identified as international waste will be located in designated areas for the contracted company to remove from the installation. The contractor is required to provide all non-personal services, management, tools, supplies, equipment, and labor necessary in order to perform Disposal of International Catering Waste service. These services are considered to be non-mission essential. The Contracting Officer Representative’s (COR) place of performance is Bldg 670, Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany.

3. PURPOSE

3.1. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a government-developed document used by the Multi-Function Team (MFT) to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides a detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

• What will be monitored

• How monitoring will take place

• Who will conduct the monitoring

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

3.2. The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

3.3. The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan.

This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance. The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

3.4. Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

4. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under FAR 46.4 Government Contract Quality Assurance which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract; and AFFARS MP 5346.103, Contracting Office Responsibilities. The acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer (CO) or a duly authorized representative such as the Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR).

PART II

5. ROLES & RESPONSBILITIES

The following Government officials will oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

5.1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR): Individuals appointed to perform quality assurance functions, and oversee performance in accordance with (IAW) the QASP. They serve as on-site technical managers assessing contractor performance against contract performance thresholds. They are responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on contractor compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. These individuals will have primary responsibility for completing Performance Assessment Reports (PAR) that will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor's performance.

The COR will notify the COR Supervisor and CO of any significant performance deficiencies and recommend improvements to the QASP and Performance Work Statement (PWS) throughout the life of the contract.

5.2. Contracting Officer (CO): The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract, and determine the final assessment on the contractor’s performance. The CO is the only person with the authority to direct the contractor in the performance of their duties under the contract and to make interpretations of and changes to the contract.

5.3. COR Supervisor: The COR Supervisor is responsible for nominating CORs, making appropriate certifications and approving COR nominations in the CORT Tool, and requesting assessment of COR performance from the CO. Should the COR Supervisor be a Functional Commander/Functional Director he/she is responsible for identifying mission essential services IAW DoDI 1100.22 & DFARS 237-76.

5.4. 52 CONS Commander: Provides the Annual Executive Review (AER) of services acquisitions to the MAJCOM for consolidation IAW AFI63-138. Ensures the MFT exercises acquisition authorities and responsibilities according to the FAR, DFARS and AFFARS.

5.5. Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC): The individual responsible for the coordination and management of the Quality Assurance Program; supports the MFT in the development of contract requirements ensuring requirements are clearly stated and enforceable; aids in development of the Services Summary (SS) and QASP and provides training to COR Supervisors, CORs, and others that interact with this contract as needed.

5.6. Contract Specialist (CS): The CS is the contracting office’s focal point for issues regarding the contract.

The CS prepares and processes modifications to the contract, assists the CO in ensuring contractor performance meets contract standards, and records and transcribes minutes for meetings. The CS will inspect the COR’s contract files at least annually to ensure documentation is maintained.

6. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND METHOD OF SURVEILLANCE

6.1. Contract Surveillance

6.1.1. Performance Assessment Approach. The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, COR Supervisor and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for management and quality control (QC) actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.1.2. Assessment Method. The methods of surveillance identified in the “Assessment Method” column of the Services Summary (SS) indicate the Government’s primary approach to quality assurance and assessment for the given performance objectives. Each of these methods is subject to change unilaterally by the Government, without notice to the contractor and without the necessity of a contract modification.

The contractor’s performance may be monitored using any of the following methods: 100% inspection;

periodic assessment/inspection; customer complaint; third party audits or assessments; random surveillance; meetings or conferences with the contractor; or other.

6.1.3. Re-Performance. If any of the services performed do not conform to contract requirements, the Government may require the contractor to perform the services again in conformity with the contract requirements at no additional cost to the Government. The COR will document the conformity and forward it to the CO. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may seek:

6.1.3.1. An equitable price reduction; or

6.1.3.2. Adequate consideration for acceptance of nonconforming services.

6.1.4. Quality Control Plan (QCP). Review of the contractor's QCP and quality control records by the COR will ensure contractor compliance with the contract's requirements.

6.1.5. Deliverables. The COR will review all deliverables for accuracy, quality and timeliness IAW the SS.

Specific deliverables include, but are not limited to:

(i) Clean waste container (as identified in the PWS)

(ii) Legal qualifications as required by local law,

(iii) Emergency Points of Contact,

(iv) On Call Rosters

(v) Written proof of disposal of waste; to include weight ticket of picked up waste as well as weight of disposed waste

6.1.6. Initial Contract Performance Review. Within 30 days after contractor assumes full performance responsibilities an initial performance review will be conducted by the MFT. The results of the review will be documented using the template at Atch 7. Review criteria includes:

- Timeliness of pickup

- Cleanliness of the pickup

- Weighing of waste (in kilograms)

- Compliance with the installation’s guidance

The review will result in one of the following assessment values:

Rating Green No issues.

Yellow Issue(s) but contractor has an adequate mitigation or corrective action plan in place.

Red

Issue(s) with inadequate or no contractor mitigation or corrective action plan. Any “red” assessment must include the government proposed actions with respect to the failing contractor.

6.1.7. Combating Trafficking In Persons (CTIP). The COR is required to ensure that the contractor complies with FAR 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons and report any violations to the CO.

6.1.8. Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (CMRA). The contractor is required to report ALL contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours). While inputs may be reported at any time during the fiscal year (FY), all data must be reported no later than 31 October of each year. The CO shall register at https://afcmra.hqda.pentagon.mil and verify that the contract data has been entered, and place a printout in the file.

6.1.9. Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool. The COR is required to register at, and self-nominate for this contract, in the CORT Tool. The COR is required to maintain their COR Profile, i.e. training certificates, up to date. Further, the COR is required to upload/maintain Status Reports, Trip Reports, Correspondence and Miscellaneous Documents in this online file. The COR Supervisor, CO, and CS are also required to register in the CORT Tool.

6.1.10. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The CS is responsible for nominating individuals for the applicable roles (Assessing Official’s Representative (AOR), Assessing Official (AO); Contractor’s Representative; and Reviewing Official (RO) in CPARS to 52 CONS CPARS Focal Point upon award of the contract. Each individual assigned a role is responsible for registering at http://www.cpars.gov and for timely input of the required documentation. CPARS input is required for service contracts exceeding $1M. See paragraph 6.3 for the applicable performance rating definitions.

6.1.11. COR File Inspection. Once a year the CO/CS will inspect the CORs file using the form in the CORT Tool entitled CO’s Annual COR File Inspection Checklist. This is to ensure the COR is performing surveillance IAW with this QASP. If the QAPC is not present during the inspection a copy of the inspection results will be provided to the QAPC within 5 workdays of the inspection.

6.1.12. Certification Of Services. The COR will register in iRAPT at the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) eBusiness Suite at https://wawf.eb.mil. At the end of each billing period, the contractor will invoice in WAWF.

The COR will review and process the invoice within 5 workdays of notification receipt. If data is correct, the services are received and accepted by the COR and the invoice is processed for payment by Defense Finance Accounting System (DFAS). If errors are encountered in contractor’s invoice, the COR will consult with the contractor to mutually rectify data. If the contractor disagrees with the COR, the COR must contact the CO for resolution. Additionally, any invoice discrepancy that affect the terms and conditions and/or price of the contract must be brought to the attention of the CO.

6.2. Surveillance Matrix/Services Summary (SS)

The SS is a list of performance objectives and thresholds that must be performed by the contractor. This SS details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance https://afcmra.hqda.pentagon.mil/ http://www.cpars.gov/ https://wawf.eb.mil/ objectives. Inspection of each objective will be documented in the COR file. Performance thresholds define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance threshold.

SS

Performance Objective

PWS

Paragraph

Performance Threshold

Assessment Method

01 Documentation

- Weight of waste removed

1.1 Provided to COR within 7 days

after pickup; on time and accurate 100% of the time

100% Inspection

Documentation

- Written proof of waste disposal.

1.1 Provided to COR within 14 days after pickup; on time and in accordance with Regulations (EC) 1096/2009 and (EU) 142/2011

100% Inspection

03 Comply with pickup procedures of international waste

1.2 through 1.3 100% compliance with required procedures and regulations.

No more than 2 valid customer complaints per month for pickup times, cleanliness, and environmental noncompliance

Periodic Inspection

Customer Complaint

Random Sampling

6.3. Performance Rating Definitions

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings will be used:

Rating Definition Note Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

PART III

7. PERFORMANCE REPORTING

7.1. Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

7.1.1. The COR must document performance as it is accomplished IAW the assessment method and frequency as it relates to the performance thresholds set forth in the SS. The COR will document results on the PAR (Atch 1). The COR will summarize the results from the PARs on the Performance Assessment Log (PAL) (Atch 2), and forward the completed documentation to the COR Supervisor, CS and CO by the fifth working day of the following quarter to document the previous quarter’s performance. The COR will upload the PAL to the CORT Tool.

7.1.2. At the completion of the contract, the COR will contact the CO for disposition instructions of the performance assessment records.

7.2. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

7.2.1. A CAR (Atch 3) is used by the COR to document deficiencies identified in the PAR. A deficiency is any SS or non-SS item that has less than satisfactory performance. A CAR can also be used by the CO for any discrepancies on a contract issue.

7.2.2. Categories of Findings. A finding is any Government-identified noncompliance with contract requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place or was not performed to the quality or timeliness standard required by the contract. A finding can be categorized as either major or minor. Findings will be documented on a CAR and must also be tracked in Corrective Action Report Log (Atch 4). Major/minor findings are defined as follows:

7.2.2.1. Major Finding. A conclusion that identifies a condition having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity under review such as:

7.2.2.1.1. Failure to meet a Performance Threshold.

7.2.2.1.2. Significant mission degradation in any contracted function.

7.2.2.1.3. A situation that is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals (or any other Government resource) coming into contact with the work.

7.2.2.1.4. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to preclude recurrence of Government identified findings.

7.2.2.1.5. Failure by the Contractor to provide corrective action to identified deficiencies within a prescribed suspense period.

7.2.2.1.6. Any failure to adhere to security regulations that results in a security incident.

7.2.2.2. Minor Finding. A departure from established standards which has little bearing on the service provided. However, if the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that a major finding is occurring or has occurred, and the contractor’s quality control program has not prevented recurrence. In this case, the minor finding should be elevated to the level of a major finding and a new CAR initiated.

7.2.3. Deficiency Reporting. When performance is determined less than satisfactory, the COR must inform the contractor's representative that performance is unacceptable and document the deficiency on a CAR. If evidence is shown where the contractor's quality control program has already documented the deficiency and timely corrective action is working the problem, a CAR may not need to be issued. The COR would then evaluate and document the contractor's action in correcting the cited deficiency and assure effective and timely corrective action is being obtained. The COR will also coordinate the deficiency report through the COR Supervisor to the CO, upload the CAR to the CORT Tool, and retain a copy in the official file.

7.2.4. The COR will refer any CAR that cannot be resolved with the contractor to the CO for resolution.

7.2.5. If the contractor receives a CAR over the course of a CPAR rating period, a determination will be made by the CO whether to include the negative performance data in that year’s CPAR.

7.2.6. Timely Feedback to the Contractor. CORs will provide timely feedback regarding any deficiencies or substandard work for contractor corrective action. In addition, any correspondence with regard to deficiencies identified during contract performance shall be identified in the PAR, forwarded to the COR Supervisor, CS and CO, and uploaded to the CORT Tool.

7.3. Customer Complaint Form

7.3.1. Customer Complaints. The form at Atch 5 will be used for customer complaints. When customer complaints are to be used as a performance assessment method, the COR will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of any negative comments received.

7.3.1.1. If the COR determines that a negative comment is not valid, the customer will be informed of the reason(s) why. The complaint will be closed on the Customer Feedback Log (Atch 6).

7.3.1.2. For validated negative comments, the COR will notify the contractor to allow opportunity for investigation, comment, and any corrective action. The COR will refer to the procedures in paragraph 7.2 to determine if it is necessary to initiate a CAR, and coordinate the CAR with the COR Supervisor and CO. If acceptable action is taken by the contractor, the complaint will be closed on the Customer Feedback Log. If unacceptable action is taken or the complaint cannot be resolved at the COR level, it will be elevated to the CO for final resolution.

8. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

8.1. Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

8.2. Performance Assessment Log

8.3. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

8.4. Corrective Action Report Log

8.5. Customer Complaint Report

8.6. Customer Feedback Log

8.7. Initial Contract Performance Review Template

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER 2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE 5. COR PHONE 6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS

CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CONCUR NON-CONCUR 12. IF APPLICABLE, CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED

COMPLETION DATE

13. IF APPLICABLE, CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR

NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

16. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Performance Assessment Report (PAR) Template, Feb 05 (SAF/AQCP)

Atch 1

FA5606XXXXXXX Page

Performance Assessment Report (PAR) Instructions

Block 1. COR enters contract or task order number.

Block 2. COR enters contractor name.

Block 3. COR enters type of services.

Block 4. COR signs and dates.

Block 5. COR enters telephone number.

Block 6. COR assigns suspense date for Contractor Representative validation if a deficiency box was checked in Block 7.

Part I. Contractor Performance

Block 7. COR checks all boxes that apply.

Block 8. COR enters Services Summary or PWS paragraph item reviewed.

Block 9. COR enters brief description of deficiency and tracking number if the deficiency box was checked in Block 7. Detailed description will be on Corrective Action Report (CAR).

Block 10. COR enters a detailed performance assessment if the deficiency box in Block 7 was not checked.

Parts II and III will be used only if a deficiency was documented in Part I.

Part II. Contractor Validation

Block 11. Contractor Representative checks one box in response to COR cited deficiency. If Concurrence is indicated, Contractor Representative continues to Block 12. If Non-Concurrence is indicated, continue to Block 13 and state reason(s) for Non-Concurrence with COR cited deficiency and return PAR to COR.

Block 12. Contractor Representative enters Estimated Completion Date of Corrective Action and continues to Block 13.

Block 13. Contractor Representative details Corrective Action and the Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence or Reason for Non-Concurrence of COR cited deficiency.

Part III. Deficiency Corrected

Block 14. COR checks appropriate block, signs, and dates.

Block 15. (Required Entry) COR remarks regarding the Corrective Action and the Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence. If Non-Concur was checked, this block should be very detailed to explain why.

Block 16. Contractor Representative enters remarks if further discussion is needed about COR concurrence with Contractor’s Corrective Action and Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence.

Electronic Link to Form:

https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/performance_assessment_report.pdf

Atch 1 https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/performance_assessment_report.pdf

FA5606XXXXXXX Page 14 of 19

Performance Assessment Log (To be performed (Daily), (Weekly), (Monthly), etc.)

Contract Number

Contract Requirement Contract Paragraph Number

Method Of Performance Assessment

Date Accomplished/Audito r Initial

Where AccomplisheCompliance Next Due

Atch 2

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

Electronic Link to Form: https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/corrective_action_report.pdf

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Atch 3 https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/corrective_action_report.pdf

FA5613-XX-X-XXXX

D at e Is su ed

Is su ed N on co nf or m an ce R es po ns e

C A

R C lo se d C lo se d- O ut Is su ed

T o

Fr om

D et ai ls

D at e D at e

V er ifi ca tio n

C A

R

CO

RR

EC

TI

VE

A

CT

IO

N R

EP

O

RT

(C

A R)

L O

G

FFA5606XXXXXXX

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

Electronic Link to Form:

https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/customer_complaint_record.pdf

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION BUILDING NUMBER INDIVIDUAL PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Atch 5 https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/afcc/knowledge_center/templates/customer_complaint_record.pdf

Customer Feedback Log and Customer Complaint Record

Customer Feedback Record Number

Time/Date of Feedback

Source of Feedback (Name/Organization) Nature of Feedback Valid

( Y/N ) Completion Date

CAR

Issued (Y/N)

CAR

Close-Out Date

Atch 6

Initial Contract Performance Review

Contractor: _____________________________________________________

Contract Type: A -- Firm Fixed Price, Low Performance Risk Requirement

Contract Number: _______________________________________________

Date Contractor assumed full performance: ___________________________

Description of Services: _______________________________________________

The Multi Functional Team (MFT) conducted an initial contract performance review as required by AFI63-138, Acquisition of Services. The criteria used to perform the review were:

List criteria

Below are the results of the review (address if the criteria was met with respect to schedule, staffing and performance):

1. Schedule:

2. Staffing:

3. Performance:

The review resulted in the following overall assessment:

□ Green--No issues.

□ Yellow--Issue(s) but contractor has an adequate mitigation or corrective action plan in place.

□ Red--Issue(s) with inadequate or no contractor‘s mitigation or corrective action plan.

Government’s proposed actions with respect to the failing contractor (insert proposed action):

CO’s Signature Block Date: __________________________

Atch 7